He also provides links to the Better Business Bureau's Overview -- and the article lists four recommendations for solving the problem, none of which are addressed by Prop B (you can read the full 6 page report here). Pacelle also links to the Misssouri State Auditor's Reports - the latest of which clearly points out in the executive summary that 40% of the licensed breeding operations were not even inspected -- and the USDA Report that notes that the agency isn't doing it's job. There is absolutely nothing in Prop B, as written, that does anything to create more resources for inspections or enforcement -- which has been very clearly defined as the problem.

*******

Campaign season is heating up -- and as predicted, the money is rolling in.

According to recently published media reports, the Missourian's for the Protection of Dogs -- the lobbying group set up to push for the new puppy mill bill in Missouri -- has raised over $1.7 million that they plan to spend on advertising to promote the law that will appear on the November ballot as Proposition B.

That $1.7 million includes $500,000 from HSUS (who had already chipped in $450,000 to get the signatures necessary to get the law on the ballot) and $200,000 from the ASPCA.

What is the biggest shame is that all of this money is going toward a ballot initiative that has very little "new" in it -- and the one new element, will likely cause more harm than good -- while doing nothing to address the real problem, which is not the need for new laws.

Universally, everyone who has studied this issues has come back with the same report -- including the MVMA, the Better Business Bureau, the USDA and the state auditor's office -- Missouri is currently not enforcing its current regulations. HSUS and the rest of the people promoting Prop B say that there are 3,000 commercial breeders in the state -- however, according to official records, only 1525 are license and only 60% of the licensed facilities were actually inspected at the time of the most recent state audit - -even though state law requires them to be inspected annually.

So if we, as a state, cannot even enforce licensing and inspection requirements - -how are we going to enforce more legislation?

******

Prop B is written to put more restrictions on commercial breeding operations in the state - and defines a commercial breeder as anyone with more than 10 breeding dogs. Prop B calls for specific regulations on food and water, housing and vet care for animals -- all of which is already covered under the Animal Welfare Act and the Animal Care Facilities Act which already governs these breeding operations. (In fact, the ACFA actually mandates that all animals are fed every 12 hours whereas Prop B makes it only mandatory to feed every 24 hours -- so it's actually downgrading feeding requirements).

The only "new" things in Prop B are the requirements are access to outside space, a limit to the number of times a dog can be bred for sufficient rest between cycles and a limit to no more than 50 breeding dogs allowed. I'm generally supportive of the first change -- and the second one too although it will be virtually impossible to enforce - but the 50 breeding dogs issue is very problematic and may likely cause way more harm than good.

*******

I'm not a fan of arbitrary pet limit laws -- or any arbitrary law for that matter. Pet limits create an artificial limit on the number of animals someone can keep. The breeding dog limit does the same thing -- although on a much larger scale. The reality is that the concern should not be on the actual NUMBER of animals someone keeps -- but on the conditions that someone keeps them in. If someone has 200 breeding dogs - -but has a well-kept facility, with a lot of staff to be sure the animals are clean and well-cared for, the actual number of dogs isn't really that big of a deal. From what I gather, many of the nicer facilities in the state are very large facilities that make a lot of revenue and they are the ones that can afford the really nice facilities and staff.

However, with the new law, 50 would be the cutoff point -- and this could prove to be very problematic.

How so? Here are several scenerios -- all of which could play out in some way or another if this passes.

1) Say me and a business partner, Bob, run a breeding operation together that has 100 dogs. With the new law, we decide to divide up the dogs and split into two separate operations -- each with 50 dogs apiece. In doing so, we have now doubled the amount of paperwork involved in doing the inspections (which the state is already failing to meet all of the inspection requirements) involved in inspecting these 100 dogs. The increased work load will further inhibit the ability of inspectors to do their jobs...not make it better.

What if I have 100 dogs, and no business partner. What would I then do with my "excess" dogs so I can comply with the new law? Well, there are quite a few options, and none of them are particularly good for the animals.

2) One option would be to go to a broker and sell off my "excess" 50 dogs and have a ready-made breeding operation for someone to buy into, complete with my AKC papers and everything for the breeding dogs. This creates the same situaton as #1, more facilities to inspect and more work not getting done.

4) And the best case scenerio -- the one in which everyone supporting the bill is hoping for -- is that these operators would just cut down their number of dogs to 50, and I guess turn the rest of the dogs over to shelters. Given this scnerio, shelters throughout the midwest (many of which are already high-kill shelters) would be flooded with even more dogs -- leading to even more killing in the area shelters. In conversations with the folks at Missourians for the protection of dogs, right now ZERO of the $1.7 million that has been raised is set to be used to help save the lives of the dogs that are made homeless by the ordinance. And this is the best-case scenerio.

********

When Wayne Pacelle made his tour of Missouri last week promoting Proposition B, he showed pictures of the worst of the worst conditions and made it seem like all of these things were legal without the passing of Prop B -- which is untrue. All of things he was describing, dogs laying in feces, dogs allowed to be sickly and die, dogs living with broken bones and compound fractures -- all of those things are currently already illegal.

In spite of what you're hearing, the actual LAWS in Missouri are not that bad - and most of the conditions that people get really upset about with puppy mills are already illegal. However, if we are going to make a dent in solving the problem, we MUST focus on better enforcement of the laws that are currently in place. Now, animal welfare groups are prepared to spend up to $2 milion (or more) focusing on a law that may do more harm than good -- and that doesn't focus on the actual problem -- enforcement. If only all of that money were going to promote things that actually would be of value, paying for more enforcement, or on promoting Operation Bark Alert (which few people know anything about) we could really make a dent in the problem.

The citizen initiative recieved more than enough signatures to make it on the ballot, however, ther was an existing lawsuit challenging the ballot language stating that the term "puppy mill" was a purposely derogetory term used to intentionally sway voters. The Secretary of State's office ruled in favor of the ballot initiative.

As the November election draws near, I expect opposition to this ordinance to spend quite a bit of money against it (the very strong agricultural community in the state has opposed this). This is problematic, as it will then also require the animal welfare/rights groups who support the bill to have to spend mightily to combat it. HSUS has already spent $450,000 on getting the ballot initiative onto the ballot -- so I expect them to throw a lot more money (probably to the tune of a couple of million dollars) to attempt to get the initiative passed.

I wouldn't normally wouldn't be opposed to spending money to stop the problem with puppy mills in the state if I thought it would solve the problem.

The ballot initiative doesn't address the problem with enforcement. It doesn't create a mode of financing more inspectors. It doesn't mandate that the inspectors do a better job of doing their jobs. It doesn't mandate that the state funds more inspectors out of their general fund. None of that.

It mostly mirrors the USDA guidelines that aren't currently being enforced and adds a couple of other stipulations that a) won't be affective and b) won't be enforced.

So instead of addressing the real problem, HSUS and some of the other animal welfare organizations plan to throw money at the problem -- money that animal advocates want to go to actually help animals -- and try to pass through new legislation that doesn't even address what everyone is saying the actual problem is -- enforcement.

If the bill somehow provided funding for more enforcement officers I would be inclined to support it, but in its current form, there seems to be no way it can succeed -- at a huge cost to animal advocates.

June 23, 2010

Confirmation bias is defined as a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. Confirmation bias often results in people collecting new evidence, interpreting evidence in a biased way, or selectively recalling information from memory.

We all suffer from confirmation bias to one degree or another -- and the better we understand how it manifests in us the better. Confirmation bias affects the organizations we join, the news we choose to read, and even the information that we see because of the Google terms we select (one may end up with a very different view of 'pit bulls' for instance if somone chooses to type the terms "pit bull bites" vs the terms "pit bulls: family dogs").

Because of confirmation bias, people often then seek out groups of people who share similar beliefs. The internet has provided countless ways for people to connect with others who share their beliefs. When we associate with others that share our beliefs - we become succeptable to the idea of group polarization. Group polarization is the idea that as people interact more with people who share their same beliefs, they become more convinced in their beliefs and more extreme in their views. This causes an overconfidence in personal beliefs that allows people to maintain or even strengthen their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.

When groups become polarized, and overconfident in their beliefs, they then become very inclined to try to discredit any person or groups of people that offer opposing viewpoints - and by discrediting the source, the belief is that it makes the information incorrect also.

These ideas aren't new -- and they can be seen throughout all areas of daily life (I'll save my rant on how this is killing our national politics for another forum). But over the past few months I've seen this manifest itself a lot in the animal welfare movement....and here are a couple of examples that have really struck me in the past few weeks.

Even so, it seems to have become a more partisan issue on the local level. When the idea of it comes up, many will step up and note the failure of the laws in other areas and why the laws shouldn't be passed. When they do, often they are dismissed by folks in the rescue/shelter community because it is assumed that these people are "breeders" or somehow taking money from the breeding community and that is why they don't support the mandatory spay/neuter laws. Instead of listening to the evidence, or looking at the data, they dismiss it because it is, in their minds, not coming from a "credible" source - but one that is only seeking out their own self interests.

And even though most national animal welfare groups do not support MSN, it is still widely supported by folks in local shelters who are often dismissive of the real-world results and real impacts of the laws when passed in communities.

Does that mean I love the CCF? No. In reality, I probably share more common beliefs about how animals should be treated and cared for with HSUS than I do with the CCF.

But that doesn't mean the actual facts presented by Humanewatch should be completely ignored. While many seem quick to dismiss them because of who is behind them (including HSUS director Wayne Pacelle), the actual data on the site should be paid close attention to. We should hold the world's wealthiest humane organization to a higher standard - and we should demand better. We should demand truth in advertising from them. And if we don't feel confident about where donations to them are going, we should seek out places to donate those dollars.

It's easy to dismiss those we think we disagree with. But it takes a smart person to look at data and understand that we can learn from all of it -- regardless of the source - -and not let confirmation bias and group polarization allow us to dismiss all information froma source just because of who is funding them.

June 10, 2010

Over Memorial Day Weekend, the staff at the animal 'shelter' in Forrest City, AR left 14 dogs out in a run together for the entire weekend while they went on vacation. The dogs included both males and females, and two female dogs that were unaltered and in heat. The dogs were left there for at least 10 hours unsupervised and without water on a 91 degree day.

A volunteer that was near the shelter stopped by to check that the ACOs had put the dogs up for the night only to find multiple injured dogs. Because it was a holiday weekend, there was no veterinarian available and a Labrador retriever, named Bozo, went into shock and tragically died from his injuries.

Unfortunately this type of neglect isn't an isolated incident - -as other videos exist that show similar signs of neglect and poor conditions for the animals (again, it's a bit painful to watch). The Fox station in Memphis confirmed many of the findings of abuse, presence of mice, and unfilled water bowls from the video. At the time, the mayor, Gordon McCoy, stood by his animal control department and blamed the contentious relationship between the shelter and the volunteers for the problem.

"We did wrong here, our guys. There was an oversight on our part and now we have to insure it doesn't happen again."

The volunteers at the shelter - who operate under the name of the Forrest City Humane Society - have been vocally against the city shelter -- especially following this recent incident. It would seem that almost any humane organization would be....except apparently the Humane Society of the United States.

"Traveled to Forrest City today to meet with the mayor and Chief of Police. Discussed all the issues and visited the shelter. What continues to harm the animals in this city is the lack of cooperative collaboration. Animal welfare organizations should strive to partner with municipal agencies to create proactive programs to curb the overall issues facing animals." (I've posted a picture to the left of it, Ms. Bender has since made her profile private)

That's right. The Arkansas State Director for the HSUS went to a shelter that has a history of bad conditions for dogs, a mayor who stood by the conditions in the past, and allowed multiple dogs to get into a fight leading to the death of one dog because of negligence and BLAMED THE VOLUNTEERS for the problem. Now, Ms Bender did not meet with any of the volunteers -- she only met with the mayor and the police chief (who now runs animal control because the other guy was pushed aside) and said the VOLUNTEERS were the problem.

Apparently we know who's side HSUS is on - -and it's not apparently the animals.

While I tend to agree that it is better for animal welfare advocates to work with cities whenever possible - at some point, if cities show they are unwilling to fix problems, it is understandable how contentious relationships can (and should) arise. And in this case, it seems like the Forrest City Humane Society volunteers have more than enough reason to be frustrated and don't seem to be at all to blame for the problems. In fact, it seems many of the problems could have been solved at least 9 months ago had changes at the shelter been made when they complained before.

Now, I realize that there are always two sides to a story, but even the city leaders are admitting that they are in the wrong -- and Bender's history doesn't give me a lot of trust in her judgment on this issue. Apparently, Bender showed up in Forrest city with Tracy Roark. Roark is the head of animal control in Little Rock who worked with Bender to pass the city's mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls back in 2008 that declared all 'pit bulls' as potentially dangerous. The dogs in the news videos greeted animal control officers excitedly while they confiscated the unlicensed dogs to haul them in to their eventual deaths. In 2008, with only 6 months of the ordinance in affect, Little Rock killed 44% more 'pit bulls' in their shelter than they had in 2007.

So there you have it, Desiree Bender and her employer HSUS, are DEFENDING an unclean, abusive city shelter that's negligence led to a dog being killed and then BLAMING the volunteer organization that is trying to make things better -- and actually saying the reason animals are dying at the shelter is because of the volunteers.

May 04, 2010

This post may meander a bit. For that I appologize. But there is an interesting battle waging in Missouri politics that may dramatically shape the face of politics in this state, will dramatically decrease HSUS's state-wide lobbying power - -that will no doubt catch the attention of politicians elsewhere.

The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act is wrought with problems. Few of the items on the initiatve are not already state law. And even the new criteria aren't going to even make a dent in the problem. Currently, the Humane Society of the United States (who is largely funding the Missourians for the Protection of dogs group -- to the tune of about $500,000 to this point) estimates that there are over 3,000 commercial dog breeders in Missouri -- of which, only 1525 are actually licensed. However, even though state law mandates that all licensed facilities are inspected each year, a 2008 audit of the State Department of Agriculture notes that in 2006, 40% of the LICENSED facilities weren't even inspected due to there being too few inspectors.

So currently, nearly 1/4 of the state's breeding operations aren't even inspected each year because they are either unlicensed, or because the state doesn't have enough inspectors to inspect even the ones that are licensed. The ballot initiative doesn't address funding, staffing or even kennel licensing -- which is right now the biggest issue keeping us from closing down more of our illegal and substandard operations.

Even worse, is the reality that the law's 50 breeding dog limit has easy loop-holes that cannot be easily undone as it will take a separate ballot initiative to change. This also doesn't include the reality that the 50 dog limit is more about counting dogs instead of how the animals are actually cared for (ie, I'm WAY more concerned about somone with 45 dogs that are abused and poorly treated than I am about the person with 55 dogs that are relatively well taken care of -- but numbers are easier to enforce so I know which one inspectors will spend more effort enforcing).

The Missouri Federation of Animals Owners has even filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot language because it claims the term "puppy mill" -- used in the bill - is a prejudicial term that was used to gain support for the initiative. If the term is deemed prejudicial, it would be wiped off the ballot.

Given all of this - -as well as the state's ag lobby - it is no surprise that there is now an effort to block the initiative.

And thus we have HJR 86. HJR 86 is an initiative to place on the ballot a change to the state Constitution. The Amendment, if passed by the voters, would dramatically limit the power of animal rights lobbying groups to impose new legislation. Here's the language:

Upon voter approval, this constitutional amendment, in order toprotect Missouri's agricultural economy, affirms the right ofMissouri citizens to raise domestic animals in a humane mannerwithout the state imposing an undue economic burden on theirowners. No law criminalizing or regulating crops or the welfareof domesticated animals will be valid unless based upon generallyaccepted scientific principles and enacted by the GeneralAssembly. The resolution will not prohibit or limit the right ofa city or county to enact ordinances and will not invalidate astate law that makes it a crime to grow a crop that has beendeclared a controlled substance. (emphasis mine).

So in other words, the state wants HSUS (and others) to butt out, leave our agriculture industry up to the scientists and farmers, and not allow citizens petitions like the most recent puppy mill initiative.

I have mixed emotions on the HJR 86. In many ways, the idea of blocking citizens petitions flies in the face of a citizen-led democracy. But on the flip side, I've said for years that while representatives are elected by the majority, one of their major roles is to protect the minority from the majority. Citizens ballot initiatives are solely "majority rules" initiatives that can allow a majority to dominate a minority. The ballot language is problematic as "generally accepted scientific principles" is very vague.

On the flip side, if the constitutional amendment makes it on the ballot, and is passed, it will completely rule out the possibility of other poorly crafted citizen's petitions like the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention bill. Which if that happens, HSUS will only have itself to blame for its history of poorly crafted legislation. And no doubt, other states that are facing HSUS ballot initiatives are sure to take note of this and likely follow suit.

It was a good piece written about some "puppy mill" legislation on the ballot in California. I won't even claim to know the specifics of their law.

But the takeaway from the article, for me at least, was the problem we've run ourselves into when it comes to potential puppy mill legislation in this country because the voices in the fight are on such polar ends of the spectrum. On one side, you have HSUS which continues to go after commercial breeders with the stated mission to end all breeding.

One the flip side, you have a lot of the large commercial breeders who want no regulation at all -- ignoring the reality that every business in existence is regulated.

And these are the two groups that are proposing the policy.

And in the middle of these two polar sides, are a lot of intelligent, caring, animal welfare people who want animals to be treated well but can still respect those who responsibly breed. Unfortunately, in many cases, we're torn between the two polar sides on which side to choose when neither really speaks for our views.

It seems increasingly clear to me that there is a huge need for "another" side. One that supports responsible legislation and enforcement that targets operators who neglect and cruelly treat their breeding animals, yet doesn't seek to end all breeding. There just seems to be so much rational middle ground here, if only someone could seize it and be the voice for it.

April 29, 2010

By now most people who read this blog are probably familiar with HumaneWatch.org-- a website that has been designed almost with the sole purpose to take down the Humane Society of the United States.

The website has really put Wayne Pacelle and the rest of the HSUS staff on the defensive -- and in the process, is finding HSUS trying to dig themselves out of a hole. Meanwhile, several local humane societies -- whose name similarities are causing consumer confusion and been a fundraising windfall for HSUS - are starting to undergo name changes to distance themselves from their unaffiliated namesake.

The attack has by Humanewatch has HSUS defending what they do to help shelters -- and as it turns out, what they do, is just raise money off of them.

And it looks like the best route for HSUS to take is to come clean with what they do and what they stand for -- before the hole they are trying to dig themselves out of gets too much bigger.

*****

On April 1st, Humane Watch ran the ad pictured here as a full-page ad in the US Today. The ad touts that everyone is probably surprised that HSUS spends less than 1% of its donations to help local animal shelters -- a statement that appears to be true according the HSUS's tax statements (you can see a list of all of their grants starting on page 36 - most of the high dollar grants are to wildlife or political orgs).

This focus on spending wouldn't be such a big deal if HSUS didn't seem to try to trick people into THINKING they were giving money to support local shelters -- even when they, in fact, were not. Hey, I get the importance of focusing on politics -- my own group is a political group - just be honest about what you are doing and what people's money is really going toward.

Throughout all of this, it seems as if HSUS has done a great job of helping themselves raise money -- but not so much at helping the rescue groups that are caring for the animals. Again, this might be fine, if people weren't donating millions of dollars to HSUS THINKING it was going to help the rescued animals --and taking money out of the pockets of the groups that actually need the money to care for them.

*****

HSUS has of course responded to the accusations by Humane Watch. The vast majority of the "defense" has been targeted at the Center for Consumer Freedom and at Humane Watch. They've really not denied any of the accusations -- they've only attacked the accuser. That, in and of itself, is pretty telling. However, in one post on Wayne Pacelle's blog, they listed out all of the things they are doing to support local animal shelters. This postis maybe the most damning testament of all. According to the blog entry, here is what HSUS says they do with their $100 million a year budget to support local shelters:

1) Host the Animal Care Expo in Nashville to provide education for animal shelter professionals - cost is $200 for people to attend.

6) The Gulf Coast Spay/Neuter project -- a project that they started when people made the same complaints after Hurricane Katrina that the money given to help animals after the hurricane were not used to help those animals -- so in order to stop legal suits against them, they started this program.

7) Hosting Spay Day - that included an online pet photo contest where they raised half a million dollars, had 200 participating spay/neuter programs -- of which 11 got grants from HSUS.

8) Humane Society University - which hosts a variety of classes for animal shelter management -- all at a fee.

There are also a couple of other programs - -their disaster assistance and Pets for Life NYC program that I really don't know a ton about that are on the list.

So, interestingly, the majority of the programs that they have "to support shelters" involve more revenue for HSUS....all the while, their fundraising is also taking money away from the shelters from people who think they support the local shelters. Tragic.

******Meanwhile, local shelters are starting to try to separate themselves from HSUS. Over the past 2 weeks, at least 3 shelters have announced that they are undergoing name changes in order to distance themselves from HSUS.

The Joplin (MO) Humane Society, which has serviced their community for 52 years, will undergo a name change that will be announced tomorrow.

If HSUS wants to solve their little PR crisis, they badly need to either a) be honest about what their fundraising dollars go toward or b) change where their fundraising dollars go. But the bait and switch scheme is out -- and if you want to get out of the hole, you have to stop digging.

Meanwhile, if you want to give money to help save animals in your local community -- please give directly to a good local shelter or rescue group in your community.

In their infinite wisdom, PETA has decided to speak out against a policy change.

In a "Special Letter" to the Detroit Daily News, a PETA spokesperson urges the Livingston County Animal control to "continue protection pit bulls by retaining the agency's current policy against adopting them out." The article continues on to talk about how many 'pit bulls' are mistreated and abused and then how "nice families rarely visit a shelter in search of 'pit bulls'." Not that PETA, who adopted out only 8 animals (on a $34 million budget) last year has any real idea of what adoptors want.

Again, PETA continues to act like killing is kindness and that somehow killing the animals protects them from the (apparently) horrible fate of being adopted.

And headline for the article even says that "Rescued pit bulls are not family pets" -- which is completely a not-true statement that doesn't take into account the hundreds of thousands of 'pit bulls' that get adopted from shelters every year that make great family pets, or that 'pit bulls' make it into the shelter for a variety of reasons....even obviously well-cared for family pets that are wearing pink toenail polish.

Every animal that enters the shelter is a living, feeling being. Each one deserves a fair evaluation. And each one deserves the opportunity to go into a loving home -- and not systematically killed as PETA not only does -- but then recommends others to do.

PETA is a richest Animal Rights organizations in the country -- that is supposedly a voice for PROTECTING animals. What message does it send to the rest of the American public when they kill 97% of the animals they touch?

In the article (written byHeather Moore who works for PETA) , in typical PETA form, they placed the blame for euthanizing 97% of the animals they touch on everyone except the people who are actually doing the kiling. And then, say they do it because they care. Heather writes:

Some people are upset, surprised even, that PETA euthanizes animals. That's understandable; no one likes the idea of euthanasia—least of all the caring rescue workers and shelter technicians who are faced with the heart-wrenching task of ending animals' lives. But they do it because they care. Because it is the kindest, most realistic thing to do.

For starters, no one is upset when shelters "euthanize" animals -- but that is by the real definition of "euthanasia". There is no question that sometimes animals are too sick, too injured or too aggressive -- and as such, euthanasia IS the most caring solution. But killing 97% of all the animals you touch? That's not "euthanasia", that's killing. And people ARE upset when shelters kill animals -- it's neither caring, nor noble. It's slaughter. And it's slaughter by people who are supposed to be CARING for animals. She continues:

PETA does everything it can to curb dog and cat overpopulation and stop the cruelty and neglect that is so prevalent in our society, yet it is often criticized for not doing enough to make loving homes magically appear. Unfortunately, no amount of money or wishing can do that. I've heard plenty of tsk-tsking at PETA, but I've yet to hear anyone propose a humane and viable alternative to euthanasia.

If anyone has one, I'd certainly love to hear it.

At this point, the writer has admitted that many of the animals are killed -- not because they are sick or injured -- but because there aren't enough homes. Here's a solution - -find homes for them. In 2007, PETA raised more than $34 million. Surely, somewhere in that hefty budget, there are the resources available to find more than 8 homes. Heck, I think I personally accomplished finding that many homes last year, and I am not a rescue and have an operating budget more than a little below $34 million. As for alternatives to killing animals -- start here.

Heather goes on to blame the public for the killing. They equate the decision to not kil the animals to "warehousing." It's as if they have completely decided to just kill every animal they touch, feel comfortable blaming everyone else, and if someone mentions a solution to the not killing they just denounce it as "impossible" or "wrong" -- covering their ears and singing "Lalalalala" at the top of their lungs so they don't have to hear it.

The solutions are out there.

PETA is not a Humane organization. There are animal killers.

And the sooner that everyone realizes that and quits giving them money, the better off we'll all be. The sooner the media realizes that PETA is NOT the voice of the mainstream community that cares about animals, the more educated people will become. And sooner we can prevent people from making excuses for killing, and for blaming everyone EXCEPT the person with the needle in their hand fo rthe killing, the better off the animals will be.

No more excuses. No more killing. Killing is not caring. Saving is caring.

February 22, 2010

Editor's Note: The timing of this may seem a little odd, but I wrote this a couple weeks ago and am just now getting around to posting it. I think it still applies -- heck, it always applies. But was reminded about this late last week when I got another fundraising email. Anyway....

Why is it, that when it comes to the Humane Society of the United States it seems as if it is always about the money?

Now, don't get me wrong, I know that fundraising is important. We all need money to help our cause. Rescues need money to save the lives of animals. Lobbying groups need money to lobby, get politicians elected, get bills pushed through.

I don't mind organizations raising money. What bugs me is when they raise money for one thing, and then use it for another.

And that's my (most current) beef with HSUS. They keep asking for money, but what animal-loving people give them money for, in good faith that animals will benefit from the money, and what they use the money for, never seem to exactly add up. And for that, I am growing tired of the Humane Society of the United States.

I confess that I don't know a lot about the key players from the Center for Consumer Freedom...but I will say this. When they criticized HSUS about the use of money collected for helping animals after Hurricane Katrina, HSUS responded to the lawsuit by building a fancy new shelter for the the state of Louisiana. Now, amidst this criticism from the CCF, Wayne Pacelle has once again responded not by denying anyof the allogations....but, wait for it, by asking for money. The CCF may have questionable motives (or not), but they seem to always be right about HSUS.

Now, again, my beef with HSUS isn't that they raise money. We all have to. But that they continue to raise money from unsuspecting donors and then using the money for something else.

I'm not even going to say that I think this is a bad use of money necessarily (it would actually be a fun debate sometime) - but here's the deal, in all of the emails that go out asking for money, in all of the posts on Wayne Pacelle's blog, never once have I been solicited to donate money to buy shares in fast food restaurants. Not once. Seems I only find out about it from reading morning e-newsletter from Nation's Restaurant News (which I do get BTW, don't judge me). Seems like with that much money getting put to that use, it probably should have come up in communications from HSUS.

Nope, it's not so much the fund-raising I mind....or even that they spend most of their money on more fundraising and lobbying...it's that I don't feel like they are at all honest with their donors on where the money is going . I think it's important that well-meaning people who in good faith want to give money to help save the dogs from Mike Vick's Kennels, aren't misled into giving money to an organization that is pushing for the dogs to be killed, or that when people give money to help "dogs like Fay", more than a fraction of a percent of the money raised will go to helping the actual dogs, and when people give money to help animals in Haiti, their money is not used to buy stock in fast food restaurants.

So just when you think that maybe HSUS would be gun shy, they come up with this post on Wayne Pacelle's blog. Go read it now. I'll wait.

In the post, Pacelle talks about the founding of the No Kill movement - -and tips his hat to people like Ed Duvin and Richard Avanzino (formerly of the San Francisco ASPCA now with Maddies Fund).

Then, there is the dig:

In the last few years—despite the shrill efforts of a few no-kill advocates whose work has retarded the progress of that cause by alienating so many people, especially within the sheltering community—there is broader acceptance of no-kill principles, and an acknowledgment that it must be our goal as a movement to find homes for healthy animals and to halt the killing of animals except when it’s medically necessary. There is a pathway, although a challenging and difficult one, to see an end in the years ahead to the routine euthanasia of animals in shelters. I know that among the celebrants will be the leaders of shelters, along with all other serious-minded animal advocates.

However, Pacelle's lash back, while trying to lead others into thinking HSUS is a leader in the No Kill movement, is just a ridiculous notion.

For starters, this is ther first time I've ever seen anything from HSUS that has even mentioned the no kill movement. In fact, everything that they seem to do runs counter to what it takes to become No Kill.

Just a few years ago, at HSUS's animal sheltering conference, they had an "expert" speaker who tried to declare that euthanasia was not killing (Update: Here's the Link -- it's hard to determine what is worse in the clip, the "expert" saying killing is not killing or the crowd clapping when she did.)

So no HSUS, don't go acting like YOU are the leader of the No Kill movement and treat Winograd as the divisive one. If you really believe in the No Kill movement (which please -- I'd love it if you were), it is only because Winograd, and hundreds of other animal welfare advocates, have drug you into it by being your moral (and financial?) compass. But it has been BECAUSE the animal welfare industry has demanded it that you are changing decades-long policies that have caused unnecessary killing of rehabilitatable dogs and cats in this country.

Meanwhile -- I can honestly say, I really hope to hear more talk of No Kill from HSUS. It would be great to have the world's wealthiest "humane" organization on board with a movement to save all of the savable dogs and cats in our shelters. And as good as it is to see they may be getting on board, it is painful to see them acting like it was their idea and criticizing the advocates that pushed them there.